Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Can Obama Make Iran Clinton’s New Iraq?

It is on in Iowa between Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. But only in mailboxes.

Senator Obama’s campaign shared with reporters this morning this mailing it sent out highlighting his early opposition to the Iraq war “when others went along” with the Bush war plan.

But, in the latest wrinkle in the fight between the two Democratic candidates, the mailing also pointedly notes that, “while other Democrats voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, Barack Obama opposed another Bush foreign policy fiasco.”

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment called for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps to be declared a foreign, terrorist organization, and some are coming to see it as a potential precursor to military action with Iran.

The Obama mailing continues, “Why is this amendment so dangerous? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language to justify keeping our troops in Iraq as long as they can point to a threat from Iran. And because they could use this language to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.”

The mailing comes just a couple of days after Senator Clinton sent a letter to Iowans explaining her vote for the amendment.

Hers read in part: “Let me be clear – I am opposed to letting President Bush take any military action against that country without full Congressional approval. And I see nothing today that would justify giving that approval.”

And, Mrs. Clinton says, she only voted for the measure after Democrats successfully pushed for the removal of language Mr. Bush could have used to justify an invasion. As it stood in the end, she said, the amendment would put pressure on Iran in the realm of diplomacy only.

For good measure, she implicitly takes at dig at Mr. Obama, saying “I was there, I exercised leadership, and I explained my vote.’’ Mr. Obama did not vote on the measure (although he said he would have voted against it.)

Mrs. Clinton’s mailing does not mention Mr. Obama by name, just as Mr. Obama’s does not mention her by name. The question will be whether things will remain that way in the paid-media game between the two as the caucuses draw closer.

In 2004, Iowans showed they did not like attack ads, or even those providing strong, policy contrasts if presented in an aggressive fashion.

They punished former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and former Representative Dick Gephardt – who were early on considered the top two candidates in the state — for going after each other with confrontational television spots over Iraq and free trade in what was famously dubbed a “murder-suicide.” The spots were credited with transforming them into third- and fourth- place finishers, and proved an old political rule that a harsh attack in a multi-candidate field can hurt the attacker and the one being attacked.

The text of Mr. Obama’s mailing:

While others went along, Obama opposed Bush’s war plans.

Barack Obama is the ONLY major candidate for president to oppose both the Iraq War from the very start and the Senate amendment that raises the risk of war with Iran.

While other Democrats voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, Barack Obama opposed another Bush foreign policy fiasco.

“Why is this amendment so dangerous? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language to justify keeping our troops in Iraq as long as they can point to a threat from Iran. And because they could use this language to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.” -Barack Obama

This mailing stakes out Obama’s territory on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment nicely. And it reminds us that smart people can see through the smokescreen the Bush administration keeps pumping out.

Mrs. Bill Clinton has a problem with Iran, too. Just like her super-hawk positions pre-Iraq, she can’t quite triangulate her way to any other solution which doesn’t include using military options. It matters not that the amendment supoosedly has no teeth. Bush and Cheney don’t need authorization, they’ll do what they want anyway and that we’re in Iraq proves it.

On Iraq, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly said she didn’t think she was voting to go to war, but for inspections — HA!– talk about naive and inexperienced!

Barack Obama is right once again. Give Bush or Cheney and inch, Hillary and they’ll start a new war.

Obama is right on the money. I am curious to see how this play out. Obviously, the Clinton camp sense a sign of vunerability on her vote.

Every body i have talked says she shouldn’t have voted for that amendement but she did. I suspect she hasn’t learned her lesson on giving George Bush a blank cheq.

Out of curiosity, what would happen if George Bush decide to attack Iran as a result of the vote? What would Senator Clinton say if it happen? I guess i am going to be hearing the same old song ” I didn’t vote to authorize the war, i voted for UN diplomacy”

This “threats” posed by Iran need to be questioned with an interrogative lens and an eye for diplomacy.
It’s up to American people to take up the torch and make sure that we do not elect a president eager to “protect American liberty” in the way that this administration has. There are ways we can actually go about doing this. And we must.

If Hillary does not want a war with Iran, she should be willing to talk with foreign leaders. Hypocrisy and lack of courage. More than time to have candidates who are not afraid to express their own feelings. We just do not need another president controlled by pressure groups and lobbysts. In what direction is the wind blowing today?

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are training and equipping Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iraqi Shiite splinter groups that are killing our troops. They are supplying virtually all of the EFPs that are blowing up our armored vehicles and the rockets that have been fired at our helicopters. But Obama, who’s not half the man Hillary is, can’t even bring himself to declare them a terrorist organization. No wonder the wuss is thirty points behind in the polls. Even the Democrats recognize and appreciate toughness.

At this point, whether or not Lieberman-Kyl was binding, HRC is guilty of saber-rattling with Iran which arguably led to Mr. Vladimir Putin’s “show of support” photo-op with Mr. Ahmadinejad.

What is so hypocritical about this is how HRC accused Obama of destabilizing Pakistan, then reversed herself when it turned out she had said the very same thing the very same day and now she thinks it’s okay to destabilize Iran with these saber-rattling measures even as she pledges to engage in diplomacy with Iran.

Even if we can excuse this hypocrisy(and all the other ones), at this point HRC’s policy in Iran is twisted into so many nonsensical pretzels I’m finding it nigh-impossible to figure out just what exactly it actually is.

Obama didn’t vote either time. If you don’t vote, you may not critize those who fultilled the obligations of their office. Sitting on the sidelines saying what you would have done had you been able to vote or had you actually voted is not leadership.

Sorry to the fans of Sen. Clinton, but she made a mistake with the Kyl-Lieberman vote. Just like her vote on the AUMF. She doesn’t seem to get it; Bush & Cheney desperately want to go to war with another middle eastern nation. They’re looking mainly at Iran and Syria. They’re totally hell bent on war, and giving them any sort of support whatsoever is a bad thing. It would have been a bad idea to vote yes on a bill stating that Ahmadenijad was short and funny-looking.

So I think Sen. Obama is completely right about this, you can’t give the Bush regime any iota of support at all, because they’re warmongering maniacs. The only justification for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman thing is if one misunderstood it as the “Kill-Lieberman amendment” (joke).

Also an aside to Lieberman and all the other conservatives out there: not only is Iran no threat to us at all, but we cannot possibly invade them. They’ve three times the population of Iraq, they have an air force (F-14’s we sold ’em, and we just sold tons of spare parts too), a navy, anti-air defenses, and the largest army in the region (tho Turkiye’s is the best). Their population won’t be infighting like Iraq either, they’d go from mainly supporting America now to entirely against us. For the love of God, don’t let Bush start any more wars! There’s only 455 days to go, please let’s get through this without making it ten times worse!

Recent NYTs publication suggested HRC figured primary for all but won, and was beginning to court center-right hawks.

If that’s the case, and that vote cast to suggest strength, she needs to step back into the fold. With the venom Bush and Cheney are spewing, she’s leading with the chin. Obama was right to send that letter, this is more important than that gospel singer nonsense and will take caucus-goers minds off it.

I can’t believe Obama’s campaign would even think of sending this out when he did not cast a vote on the resolution himself. When he gets around to actually calling Hillary out on something he’s taken a substantive stand on, maybe people will actually start paying attention (I’ve always believed that his 2002 vote in the IL Senate could hardly be compared to a vote cast in the US Senate – although he’s chosen to do so ad infinitum). He’s sounding more and more pathetic at this point.

How can Obama claim on the one hand that the importance of this vote was on par with that of the Use of Force Resolution for Iraq in ’02 and explain why he DIDN’T VOTE ON IT? Additionally, strong supporters of his, like Sen. Durban, also voted for it–does that mean he’d accuse Durban of supporting war on Iran?

The Orwellian debate continues. Anyone who believes that the U.S. is motivated by the (non-existent) Iranian nuclear “threat” and not merely looking for an excuse to enact the 2nd phase of the re-mapping of the Middle East, needs a refresher course in relatively recent Iranian diplomatic initiatives, ignored with contempt by Clinton, Obama, the rest of the mainstream candidates from both parties as well as the power-worshipping and ludicrously labeled “liberal media”.

In 2003, the moderate Khatami government in Iran offered to completely suspend nuclear enrichment as well as open all areas of disagreement with Washington to negotiations. This included all nuclear issues, the Israeli/Palestinian issues and support of Hezbollah. The only condition placed on such negotiations was a halt to the threats of attack by Washington. Not only does the Bush administration reject the offer, they didn’t even respond to it, and reprimanded the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer. Why would they do that?

Where did this lead? Khatami, who took a huge risk in taking a diplomatic stance with Washington in the face of severe hardline opposition, was humiliated and lost the next election to Ahmadinejad. The nuclear program then began in earnest.

Additionally, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA and 2005 Nobel Laureate, proposed putting all weapons-grade fissile material production under international control and supervision, while allowing any nation that wanted the materials for peaceful use to apply for it. The only nation to agree to the very practical idea was Iran. The only nation on earth.

Furthermore, the EU made a deal with Iran to guarantee “security” (read: no U.S. invasion) in exchange for a halt in uranium production. Washington forced the EU to back out of the deal.

More recently, the United States further reprimanded El Baradei for making the following statements, in September of 2007:

ElBaradei: “I repeat: we have not seen any undeclared facilities operating in Iran, we have not seen any concrete evidence that the Iran program is being weaponized. We have not received any information to that effect. So, I haven’t heard any other information to the contrary. So while we are still concerned about the nature of the Iranian program… I do not believe, at this stage, that we are facing clear and present danger that requires that we go beyond diplomacy.”

What does this tell you? Does the action of Washington sound like those of a nation that wants to stop Iran’s nuclear program? Or does it sound like they are merely looking for an excuse to invade and restore the puppet government that repressed the Iranian population for 26 years under the Shah? To open the Iranian petrol resources to American and British corporations? Wake up.

It’s so obvious that it take an enormous amount of effort NOT to see it. Any Presidential candidate that plays into this farce should face charges of treason, instead of being allowed to run for the highest office on the planet.

I am continually amazed at the downright hatred and misinformation about Hillary Clinton from Obama supporters. I am relieved, however, that Clinton supporters are much more mature and have a healthy respect for Obama that has eluded his cheerleaders. How, though, do they expect Obama to win anything with only 25% support in his own party? Even a nutcase like Giuliani gets better numbers than that.

Why doesn’t the NY Times actually explain the language in this Iran amendment. I want to know why Clinton says it doesn’t give authority for military action when it talks about use of “Military instruments.” So she should explain what military instruments are. I don’t think it is the marching band. Why does the NY Times leave this fuzzy? Explain what the amendment says and what it doesn’t. I think Obama is right here. That should be made clear if he is.

I love how Obama doesn’t mention the fact that despite his strong protestations to the measure, and how important he evidently feels it is, he was NOT there to vote against it. Talk about hypocrisy. Your job as a senator is to vote for or against bills. It’s not enough to say you would have done something. Put your money where your mouth is. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

It scares me to think that a Democrat actually may win the White House in ’08 and become Commander In Chief with the responsibility of ensuring America’s safety and survival. A quick look at their history in regards to the use of the military to protect America. Democrats opposed ‘Mr. Lincoln’s War’ and his efforts to preserve the Union and free millions of slaves. Democrats did all they could to keep the US out of WWII. Had they been successful, America might be part of the Third Reich and there might not be any human alive with Jewish ancestry. Democrats stabbed our South Vietnamese allies in the back, first by starting and escalating the Vietnam War, promising that America would protect them from the Communist North. Democrats eventually caved on their promise, leading millions to be slaughtered in the killing fields of Southeast Asia. Democrats opposed the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, arguing that an emboldened Saddam Hussein was good for the world. Democrats allowed the genocide in Rwanda to occur, and allowed Al Qaeda free reign during the 1990’s to kill Americans and attack American interests. And once again, Democrats overwhelming supported the liberation of Iraq in 2002, only to wave the white flag of humiliating surrender when the going got tough. It’s scary to think that a Democrat could once again be put in charge of protecting America.

good work by obama for championing not going to work and doing his job while collecting his $180k of tax money. hoooray, thats what who i want for president, another lazy do nothing, thanks but no thanks, we just had dubya taking 200 days a year off, we dont need another lazy no experience “newcomer” in the white house.

And just in case anyone is wondering why Obama was unable to vote on the K-L Bill, it is because because it was tabled indefinitely by Harry Reid, the day prior to Obama campaigning in New Hampshire. The Senate did not announce when the vote would be held.

Sen. Reid, whose son is actively campaigning for Hillary Clinton, pulled the bill off the table while Obama was in New Hampshire and put it to a vote before Obama had -time- to get back from New Hampshire to DC.

When is the Times going to report the fact that Obama, Dodd, and other Democrats voted on a strikingly similar measure last spring calling on the Pentagon to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization? As I understand it, the difference between the measure voted on last spring and the most recent one is who does the declaring–the Pentagon or Congress.

We can debate the significance of the reworked language–and it may be very significant–but we need to acknowledge that Obama, at least as of last March, felt that our government should go on record in declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

So let’s see–he voted for making this declaration in March, does not show up for the vote when it comes up again in the fall with reworked language, but takes the moral high ground by insisting he would have voted against it–with no acknowledgement or explanation of his prior vote. Where is the leadership in that?

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…